Carbon dating is not accurate. It is based on the assumption that certain materials (ie carbon & urainium) leach out of objects at a set rate. Therefore, if there's less carbon in a item the older it has to be. The trouble is there are too many unaccounted for variables for such a system to be accurate. Personally, if we insist on applying a year of origin on the age of the Universe I think we should be talking Trillions, not billions.

Logged

Life is a school. What have you learned? :brian: The greatest danger to our society is apathy, vote in every election!

I agree with your first part about carbon dating. If carbon dating has been proven innaccurate, then why use it at all? If I gave you a computer that gave you three different answers to every question, would you use it? Of course not. The truth is radio carbon dating is not accurate past about a 500 year limit. And what they do not tell you is the lab that does the testing always asks how old you fell the object is before they "test" it.

In the case of the Kennewick Man several years ago three tests were done and the dating ranged from 3000 to 9000 years. Of course they chose the 9000 year date because it was the closest to what they had hoped it would be. How impressed are we by a test that is up to 300% inaccurate?

Brian, If you knew how corrupt the scientific community was and how much of it is based on grant monies and politics, you would pay little attention to their supposed "facts". When I lived in Oregon and read the Oregonian newspaper, they had a "Science" page every Thursday. Now, during a 1 year period in 1999 they printed three different articles on how "planets were formed". Each of these had completely incompatible theories:

-PLanets are formed by space dust collecting into a ball.-PLanets are formed by liquid collecting into a ball (this theory is actually biblical. Shhh, don't tell them)-Planets are formed by galactic "Sponges" that collect matter and eventually became shaped like a ball.

Each of these articles were worded as though they were proven facts. Just as the article about the "feathered fossil" that other scientists had identified as not feathers, but scales. Regardless, the "feather" theory, which was held by only two Oregon State Students, who saw the fossil through a glass case at a shopping mall, won out and within a year there was a picture of the "feathered flying reptile", which resembled a rat with "glider" wings, published in a children's dinosaur book. Now, this illustrated "flying rat" had a tail. Yet, in the article, the OSU two students made the comment that the fossil did not have a tail, but that they had hoped it had. BUt here is the kicker. The Oregonian printed the article with two photos of this fossil: one regular and one "close up". But even a cursory look revealed that it was in fact two completely different fossils, with the "feathers" pointing opposite directions! And the "feathers" on one fossil were smooth and bent at the top while the "feathers" on the other one were ridged and straight. Two photos of two completely different fossils being represented as two pictures of the same fossil!

Carbon dating is not accurate. It is based on the assumption that certain materials (ie carbon & urainium) leach out of objects at a set rate. Therefore, if there's less carbon in a item the older it has to be. The trouble is there are too many unaccounted for variables for such a system to be accurate. Personally, if we insist on applying a year of origin on the age of the Universe I think we should be talking Trillions, not billions.

Brian, You're mixing apples and oranges here. There's carbon dating, which measures C-14, and is used to measure once-living things, and radiometric dating, which is based on the radioactive decay of certain elements (e.g., uranium into lead). Because of the half-life of C-14, carbon dating cannot be used on anything much older than around 30,000 years, because there's no detectable C-14 left. It's radiometric dating that is used on rocks, and gives dates in the millions and billions of years. Both dating methods rely on certain assumptions and are subject to interpretation.

Quote from: Hopeful

That is exactly why the "age of the earth" keeps getting older and older. For the evolutionists, unaccountable and unprovable time is their only ally, except maybe a liberal interpretation of the "fossil record". The more complicated we find the simplest systems to be (remember when Darwin spoke of "simple cells"? Well, we now know a "simple cell" is as complicated as an F18 fighter jet) the more time must be added to the evolutionary equasion.

But the irony is, more time doesn't help! Mathematically, more time is LESS favorable. Think of it this way: we know that in a casino the odds favor the house. If I go for a weekend, there's a chance I could get lucky and come home a winner. But if I go to the casino night after night, month after month, the odds will catch up to me and I'll be bankrupt. Likewise, with evolution dependent on random mutations, the chances of bad mutations far outweigh the chances of a "good" mutation. Bad mutations will accumulate at a rate much, much faster than any good mutations. It's all a downhill ride...

Very true, Indypartridge. The truth is that even with Billions and I suppose trillions of years the odds do not change, ever. It is still throwing a load of lumber into the air and hoping it falls into a little house. These same odds apply each time the mutation is attempted. BUt genetically, the problem is that a mutation is an upset in the makeup and reading of the DNA, the "blueprints" that tell each and every cell what it is going to be. It is like this. The dna for example says:

"the dog ate his food, the dog ate his food, the dog ate his food" This represents an understandable set of directions for the creation of certain cells. If we move even a single letter,or bar, the dna does not reassemble and read in a way that makes sense, since all the "letters" then slide down to the next position and disrupts the entire chain. Let us remove only the "d" and see what it now says.

"the oga teh isf oodt, heo gat ehi sfo odth, eog ate his foo dthe"

This is of course only an illustration. But this is exactly what happens in a genetic mutation. And these affect the other systems as well. How ironic that it is science itself that has destroyed the evolutionistic model! You can't have life without dna and you cannot have dna without dna to tell the dna what kind of dna to be. In other words, DNA cannot evolve, only break down. And since DNA cannot evolve then life form which depend on DNA cannot evolve. Various traits within the existing DNA can express itself differently, such as putting a lzard in a cave and within three or four generations, they have white skin and no eyes. Take the same lizard oiut of the cave and within a few generations will have opigment and eyes again.These were simply expressions that were "shut off" and others "turned on" without an evolution of the genotype of any kind in the Darwinian sense of changing into another kind. It all points to a creator who gave the blueprint to begin with. BUt the Bible confirms this when it says "each brought forth fruit after its kind". This applies to the scientific principle that species of different "kinds" do not produce amalgamated offspring that can reproduce. BTW, my late father in law, Willard Centerwall was a top genetics science pioneer and was a Christian. He developed the Bengal cat through genetic manipulation and selective cross breeding. So this info comes straight from the top.

Genetics are the evolutionists worst nightmare and the creationsists dream. :)

But if you hold to the religion of evolution I do not mean to upset you or dis your faith, so please do mot get angry with me. I just wanted to point these things out and show that some of us Christians did not "check our brains at the door" of our churches. We have sound and intelligent reasons for our faith. God said to love Him with all our hearts and all our MINDS.

It is said that the dinos were wiped out 63 million years ago and the only animals that survived that ice age were probably small creatures. Now I wonder how many different evolutionary changes it would have taken to go from one of those creatures to the humans we have today. Would one million changes get it done? Or would it take many more than that?

Logged

:rainbowflower: Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak. :rainbowflower:

the current system of dating fossils etc. doesn't work as it is supposed to. ask how they know how old a fossil is and they tell you "from the layer of the earths crust it was found in". well how do you know how old that layer is? and it's " by the fossils we found in it". duh! that's not science! there are absolutely NO transition fossils, the fossil layer starts suddenly and by the way there is evidence from cave drawings and fossilized footprints that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time. can you tell me why science STILL calls it the THEORY of evolution if it's a proven fact but refers to GOD'S law of creation? the basic law of thermodynamics dictates that things go from a higher state of being and break down to a lower form not the other way around.

the current system of dating fossils etc. doesn't work as it is supposed to. ask how they know how old a fossil is and they tell you "from the layer of the earths crust it was found in". well how do you know how old that layer is? and it's " by the fossils we found in it". duh! that's not science! there are absolutely NO transition fossils, the fossil layer starts suddenly and by the way there is evidence from cave drawings and fossilized footprints that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time. can you tell me why science STILL calls it the THEORY of evolution if it's a proven fact but refers to GOD'S law of creation? the basic law of thermodynamics dictates that things go from a higher state of being and break down to a lower form not the other way around.

I will be simple here. This is why children in today's school system turn out the way they do.

Sincerely,Brendhan

Logged

The status is not quo. The world is a mess and I just need to rule it. Dr. Horrible

jerrymac, i don't think anyone can really answer your question. the theory of evolution has changed over time. when i was young and they began to teach it in school, they taught us that over the course of millions of years we developed from a cell in the slime, to aquatic animals, through ape, to man. now we are being told that we developed after the dinosaurs died which gave mammals a chance to thrive and man to develope...still through ape?? maybe?

i agree with mark about this; many hours are spent teaching this theory to children, and excluding all other discussion. you will never hear creation discussed in class even when a student brings it up. the teacher will hide behind the "separation" crap, and kill the questions. the best you might get is a bit of a conversation about alien colonization, and the teacher will eventually end it by getting back to the "facts".....this years facts.....

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

It is said that the dinos were wiped out 63 million years ago and the only animals that survived that ice age were probably small creatures. Now I wonder how many different evolutionary changes it would have taken to go from one of those creatures to the humans we have today. Would one million changes get it done? Or would it take many more than that?

Jerrymac,

This is a great question. One I am not qualified to answer. Not even close. But it made me think. What degree of change becomes evolutionary? I mean hair color is it evolutionary?The Innuit tend to be short and stocky to adapt to the cold enviroment they have lived in for so long.What about the facial charecteristics between someone who is asian, african, or caucassian?If we had several dozen generations born and live in space. Would they appear different to adapt to the enviroment?

Sincerely,Brendhan

Logged

The status is not quo. The world is a mess and I just need to rule it. Dr. Horrible

play? sure ..... seems to me were all on the same side though. what i have learned is that all mutations are produced when some part of the DNA STRING is missing. when bred back to the "normal" the mutation hides genetically or disappears and the DNA string is restored to the normal. most bred for traits in living thing that man "selectively breeds" are recessive and the animal or plant would NOT survive in nature. hybrids cannot reproduce their own type. you can change the way the dog looks but it will never mutate or EVOLVE into a horse.

survivor traits would explain the differences in people around the world. those people with the traits that made it easier to survive in certain environments would pass those traits on. eventually, they would be the dominant traits. we also know that our bodies can adapt to different environments even in one life time. the better ones ability to survive, the longer they live, the more they breed, the sooner their stock takes over.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

The THEORY of evolution - from goo to you by way of the zoo , has proven itself to be an evolving theory . The truth is resolutely steadfast . As He said " you will know the truth and the truth will set you free " . So , if the truth sets you free , what would anything less than the truth do but make you a prisoner ? Truth is absolute and not relative . It is the worthy perogitive of the CREATOR . And the evidence of creation is plainly there for all to see . Take a look around , think it over , and then call on Him to reveal the truth to you . Come on , what have you got to lose ? " Ask and you will receive . Seek and you will find . Knock and the door will be opened to you . " ---Burl-- a former atheist

Logged

Of all the things I've ever been called ;I do like "Dad" the most . ---Burl---

The THEORY of evolution - from goo to you by way of the zoo , has proven itself to be an evolving theory . The truth is resolutely steadfast . As He said " you will know the truth and the truth will set you free " . So , if the truth sets you free , what would anything less than the truth do but make you a prisoner ? Truth is absolute and not relative . It is the worthy perogitive of the CREATOR . And the evidence of creation is plainly there for all to see . Take a look around , think it over , and then call on Him to reveal the truth to you . Come on , what have you got to lose ? " Ask and you will receive . Seek and you will find . Knock and the door will be opened to you . " ---Burl-- a former atheist

Spoken like a man who's died and lived to tell about it. When you tell people that they communicate telepathically and by projecting pictures on the other side they look at you like you're crazy. But believe me, nothing explains things so exactly as a mental image projected from one being to another--it tells everything.

Logged

Life is a school. What have you learned? :brian: The greatest danger to our society is apathy, vote in every election!

I was thinking some one would say that it would take several million evolutionary changes to get from what ever small mammal survived 63 million years ago to the humans today.

Now think about this. If it took just one million changes that would have to be an evolutionary change every 63 years. How have we changed in the last 7,000 years? (about the time since Adam.)

The "rate" that evolution happens can create all kinds of controversy when you look at it logically.

One recent study claims that human evolution is happening much faster now than in the past.http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-12/uou-ahe120607.php"If the rate at which new genes evolve in Africans was extrapolated back to 6 million years ago when humans and chimpanzees diverged, the genetic difference between modern chimps and humans would be 160 times greater than it really is. So the evolution rate of Africans represents a recent speedup in evolution."Now I don't see the conclusion following the facts. If the genetic difference between chimps and humans should be "160 time greater" based on their measured rate of change, it seems to me that it would be equally (if not more) likely that the assumption of "6 million years" is in serious error.

It's also interesting to note that if human evolution IS happening faster, then Nobel prize winner James Watson was absolutely correct in his reasoning and comments he made last fall which caused him to be labeled a racist. He was reported to have said "there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically.", which was taken to be a racist slam against Africans. Even after he attempted to clarify his position:"we do not yet adequately understand the way in which the different environments in the world have selected over time the genes which determine our capacity to do different things,... the overwhelming desire of society today is to assume that equal powers of reason are a universal heritage of humanity... it may well be. But simply wanting this to be the case is not enough. This is not science. To question this is not to give in to racism. This is not a discussion about superiority or inferiority, it is about seeking to understand differences."

Science dares not challenge Political Correctness. In the end, he was painted as a doddering old fool and forced into retirement.

In the beginning... well I will be honest, I Don't Have Any Idea. There was a time when I was smarter and believed the scientists and sidewalk preachers and ministers and books and professors and professers and... now I am quite ignorant about such things. I only know that I feel something beyond myself, I now say that all the talk and speculation is keeping us from really seeing what seems to be profound beyond any words or Knowing

i thought he made a perfectly valid observation and expressed a valid opinion.

god help those who challenge the "consensus".

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

Matter is complex, because the world is not a laboratory under control. When you say a word, it can be "the word" and you have a war there or here.This "way of life" called "state of nature" where men discover their differences was treated since a philosophical pov By Hobbes (Homo homini lupus or "war of all against all") before that scientifical pov by the Nobel prize. The result is always the same :fishhit:

Edit: I am re-reading me :?, and IÂ´m thinking now that the Hobbes writtings are more elaborated than the scientifical one. Because Hobbes explained the superation of the state of nature and the scientifical wants to explain the state of nature, with the problem that humans are very sensible and come back to primitive stages because we are 97% geneticaly like primates.